9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2479 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - there is a gap of 5 months between the withdrawal of the cash from the Bank account and re-deposit of the same in the Bank account - Held that - No addition can be made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on the sole reason that there is a time gap of 5 months between the date of withdrawal from bank account of the cash in question and the redeposit of the same in the Bank Account unless the AO demonstrates that the amount in question has been used by the assessee for any other purpose. In my view the addition is made on inferences and presumptions which is bad in law. Hence the addition in question is deleted. See AICT vs. Baldev Raj Charla 2008 (12) TMI 241 - ITAT DELHI-C - Decided in favor of assessee
Issues: Appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12 regarding addition of Rs. 8 lacs under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on cash deposits in the bank account.
Analysis: 1. The Assessing Officer (AO) examined cash deposits of Rs. 53,00,000 in the assessee's bank account and made an addition of Rs. 8 lacs under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO considered the explanation provided by the assessee but rejected some parts, leading to the assessment of total income at Rs. 9,91,562. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, resulting in the appeal by the assessee. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 8 lacs, arguing that it was based on conjectures and surmises. The assessee contended that the cash withdrawal and re-deposit were explained, and the addition was unjustified. The assessee relied on precedents supporting their case and emphasized that the books of accounts were not rejected. The assessee's counsel cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support their arguments. 3. The Ld. Counsel of the Assessee argued that the addition was made solely on the presumption of a 5-month gap between cash withdrawal and re-deposit, which was not a valid reason for the addition. The counsel referenced a Tribunal decision emphasizing that such additions require a finding that the amount was used elsewhere. In contrast, the Ld. DR supported the AO and Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting the pattern of re-deposits and lack of explanation for the 5-month gap. 4. The ITAT, Delhi referred to previous decisions, including AICT vs. Baldev Raj Charla, to establish that additions under section 68 cannot be solely based on time gaps between cash transactions unless there is evidence of alternative use. Following this precedent, the ITAT held that the addition of Rs. 8 lacs was unjustified as it was made on presumptions and inferences. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, deleting the addition and ruling in favor of the assessee. 5. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated findings and evidence in making additions under section 68 of the I.T. Act, emphasizing that mere time gaps between cash transactions are insufficient grounds for additions without proof of alternate use. The ITAT's decision provided clarity on the legal requirements for such additions, ensuring a fair and justified assessment process.
|
